Take It For What It's Worth

General

In November 2018’s patrons exclusive, I give a review of season 3 of Marvel’s Netflix series Daredevil. I also go over three lessons that I thought were encapsulated in the story’s plot. To view the entire video, head over to my Patreon page and pledge at least $1 per month:

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Share this:

Like this:

Allyson Rowe has a lot to say about how God speaks to her through dreams and other nebulous forms of communication. However, the prophecies she makes are fundamentally unfalsifiable, and therefore her viewers have no way of judging whether or not they are genuine. In this video, I point out the acontextual ways that Allyson uses the Bible, and how her prophecies are nothing but pseudo-spiritual nonsense designed to play on people’s emotions.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.

Share this:

Like this:

This past week, I had Dr. Bo Bennett on my channel to discuss his website https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies. This was a great discussion about the importance of good reasoning, no matter what side of any issue you come down on.

Like this:

In his national bestseller, The 48 Laws of Power, author Robert Greene opens chapter 31 with the following statement,

“The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn” (Elffers & Greene, 1998, p. 627).

This is of course a summary of the 31st Law of Power, control the options and get others to play with the cards you deal.

I am very much a fan of Greene’s book. In a brutally honest fashion, Greene explains the various methods that kings, presidents, tyrants, and con men alike have used to exercise authority over others. While the average reader would undoubtedly find many of the described tactics to be unethical, the purpose of the book is not to discuss questions of ethics but only to explain those activities that do in fact lead to power when practiced.

As a libertarian anarcho-capitalist who constantly preaches against the authority of the state, you may be wondering why I would concern myself with such matters. It’s true that some people may read this book seeking to learn how to control others, but I have found that the information contained therein is also useful for the exact opposite. When one understands the methods that others use to obtain power, they can recognize what is going on beforehand and avoid the snares in which the power seeker desires to trap them.

In this article I’ll be discussing how the election of representatives to government positions is the perfect example of the 31st Law of Power in action. Like every good con, the less the person being conned knows about the subject of the con, the more likely they are to be swindled. In the same way, the more people come to learn about the nature of elections, the more they will come to realize that the government is in fact the source of their problems and not the solution.

As an American, I will be using the history of the Democratic and Republican Parties as an example, but these same concepts apply to virtually any country with a two-party system (which in today’s day and age is most countries).

While the specific political views of the Democrats and the Republicans have evolved over time, they have always been expressed as opposite ends of the political spectrum. The Republican Party is the party of the church-going nuclear family, committed to traditional values and small government. As Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, reportedly said, “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or can not so well do, for themselves – in their separate, and individual capacities.”

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has always painted itself as the party of the common man and of progress. While it has taken many forms, the Democrats’ message has always been some variation of the idea that different subsets of people face different problems, and at least one of those groups of people has an unfair advantage. As such, the government must be given additional powers to correct the imbalances in society and ensure a more prosperous life for everyone. Traditional values are almost certainly rooted in ignorance and ought to be thrown out in favor of new, progressive ones.

Now, assuming both of these political parties actually governed the way they campaign, one would expect a particular pattern in history. Republican Presidencies and majorities in Congress should be marked by lower taxes, reduced spending, and the abolition of government agencies and programs that were deemed extraneous. Democratic Presidencies and majorities in Congress should be marked by higher taxes, increased spending, and the creation of new government agencies and programs that will allegedly improve the lives of the citizenry. But is this what history shows?

Take a look at the below chart depicting government spending since 1790 and projected through 2050. There is a consistent trend no matter who controls Congress and no matter who sits in the White House: increased spending. There may in fact be nominal tax cuts throughout America’s history, but since they aren’t joined by corresponding decreases in spending, these so-called tax cuts cannot be sustained indefinitely. To continue paying the deficit, the government will eventually have to raise taxes or inflate the currency, but either way the resulting effect is less wealth in the hands of the citizens.

What about the size and scope of government? How many government agencies do we have anyways?

At the birth of the United States it appears there were only a few. According to the Center for Effective Government, “The first agencies of the federal government were the Departments of War, State, Navy, and Treasury. There was also an Office of the Attorney General” (“A Brief History of Administrative Government”, para. 2). However, today it seems that no one really knows how many government agencies exists.

“There is no authoritative list of government agencies. Every list of federal agencies in government publications is different. For example, FOIA.gov lists 78 independent executive agencies and 174 components of the executive departments as units that comply with the Freedom of Information Act requirements imposed on every federal agency. This appears to be on the conservative end of the range of possible agency definitions. The United States Government Manual lists 96 independent executive units and 220 components of the executive departments. An even more inclusive listing comes from USA.gov, which lists 137 independent executive agencies and 268 units in the Cabinet” (Lewis & Selin, 2012, p. 15)

Think about it. When was the last time you heard about a government agency closing its doors for the last time? It seems every year a new government agency, program, commission, or some other euphemism for agency is created, but mysteriously the politicians who say they are for smaller government never manage to cut the size of government down.

The bottom line is that no matter who is elected, the result is the same. The government collects more money from its citizens and increases its size and regulatory authority. This may happen slower or faster depending on how the current politicians go about their business, but it happens none the less.

The reason of course is that the government is not some abstract, morally perfect entity that exists apart from the rest of society. The government is, at the end of the day, simply a group of people, and like all people, they act in their own self-interest. However, unlike private individuals and corporations, the government has the power to force the population to pay for its services whether they want to or not.

Assume for a minute that you had the power to increase your paycheck at will. How many people who had this power would choose not to do so? Or assume that you had the power to create money out of thin air in order to pay off your debts. Again, how many people would choose not to do so despite having this power? Once you consider these questions it’s not difficult to see that when politicians and federal employees seek to further their own interests, the result will inevitably be an increase in the size and scope of the state.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that it is always inappropriate to vote. In short term and immediate contexts, voting can be a legitimate act of self-defense against the state. For example, a voter in a local election may save some of his money in the short term if he votes against a new city project that has been put on the ballot.

However, I am suggesting that voting for “better” politicians can never be seen as the engine by which true positive change will come about. The swamp cannot be drained by utilizing the swamp. True, positive change cannot be affected until the population at large recognizes the government for what it is, the source of their problems and not the solution.

By utilizing democratic elections, governments successfully con their populations into believing they have control over what happens in the country. It makes them believe that the actions government takes were really their choices, and that they can set the country on a new course by voting in the future. However, the choice of who to vote into office is more analogous to that of a prisoner who is given the choice of dying by hanging or by beheading. He may in fact prefer one to the other, but either way he ends up dead.

Share this:

Like this:

If you’re a follower of my content, you’re probably someone who loves to study topics that other people find boring and over complicated. I know I’m such a person. I can spend hours reading through books on philosophy, economics, or religion; and afterwards I’m all too eager to share what I’ve learned with my friends and family.

Of course, one thing I’ve always found I have to be careful of is to make sure I don’t overestimate how knowledgeable I am when making the case for something I’ve only just begun to study. Unfortunately, this is something most everyone falls victim to at some point and has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect (Dunning, 2011). A victim of the Dunning-Krueger effect is someone who is not only ignorant of the topic on which he speaks, but is also ignorant of his own ignorance. As Sam Harris has stated, “the less competent a person is in a given domain, the more he will tend to overestimate his abilities. This often produces an ugly marriage of confidence and ignorance that is very difficult to correct for” (Harris, 2010, p. 123).

However, the point of this post is not to warn you about the Dunning-Kruger Effect itself but rather to help you recognize when you are erroneously accused of being an example of it. While the Dunning-Kruger Effect is certainly real, I’ve found that erroneous accusations of it may be even more common than the Dunning-Kruger effect itself.

For example, you’ve probably been in a discussion or debate of some sort and encountered a person who, in apparent frustration, simply told you, “You just don’t get it.” They then launch into a short tirade about how you need to pick up a book and start doing research, after which they laugh loudly, stick their nose in the air with an aura of condescension, and walk away. They may even explicitly tell you that you are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

However, what’s interesting is that seldom have I encountered a person who makes this kind of claim and also proceeds to explain what part of the other person’s view was incorrect. They’re willing to tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but they’re completely unwilling to educate you so that you don’t make the same mistake in the future. Granted, it may be the case that they simply don’t have the time to do so, but I doubt that this is the case in the vast majority of circumstances.

If someone tells me that I don’t know what I’m talking about in the course of discussion, I try my best to always pause. After all, if I can’t even acknowledge the possibility that I’m wrong, what is the point of having a discussion? However, there’s something I feel should be very obvious to anyone who actually understands what it means to be knowledgeable.

If the person making the accusation of ignorance actually understands the topic in question, it should be very easy for them to explain it in a way that even laypeople can understand.

I took Chemistry in college, and I hated every second of it. I don’t pretend for a moment that I could describe the intricacies of Chemistry with any specificity or detail. However, what convinced me that my professor could, was the fact that when she explained something, she was able to take a complex idea and put it into terms than anyone in the class could grasp. The same thing is true when considering an expert in any topic, not just chemistry.

When debating adherents of Marxism, I’m often accused of not knowing what socialism really is. However, when I challenge my opponent to set me straight, I’m almost never met by an attempt to do so. They simply say, “I’m not going to do the work for you. Go read The Communist Manifesto.” When I explain that I have a digital copy on my phone and laptop and have read it many times, they simply laugh at me and claim that I must be too stupid to understand it and walk away.

I’ll never be impressed with these kinds of dismissive statements and neither should you. Regardless of what topic you’re debating, the person making the positive claim always bears the burden of proof. Claiming your opponent doesn’t understand what he’s talking about is a claim that needs to be defended like any other. They shouldn’t be impressed if you make statements you don’t back up, but by the same token, you shouldn’t be impressed if they accuse you of ignorance but then refuse to back up that assertion.

Simply put, if the person accusing you of ignorance really understood the topic in question, they should be able to summarize it in a way that is easy to understand. Hiding behind statements like, “Go read this book,” or “You just need to do more research,” only inclines me to believe that they are the one suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

And that is my 2 cents. Take it for what it’s worth.

Citations:

Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger Effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 44, 247-296.

Harris, S. (2010). The Moral Landscape. New York: Free Press.

Share this:

Like this:

Has anyone ever tried to bring an argument to an end by claiming they’re smarter than you, have greater academic credentials, or simply don’t need to refute your argument because it’s too stupid? This is essentially a reverse of the common ad hominem fallacy, and it’s no more valid or impressive.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.